www.ijcrsee.com
103
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
Original scientific paper
Received: December 01, 2023.
Revised: February 22, 2024.
Accepted: March 20, 2024.
UDC:
376.014.5-056.26/.36-053.4/.6
10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-1-103-117
© 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*Corresponding author: nina.kristl@ff.uni-lj.si
Nina Kristl1* , Katja Jeznik1
Measuring Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training through
the Prism of Justice of Education
1
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail:
nina.kristl@ff.uni-lj.si
;
katja.jeznik@ff.uni-lj.si
Abstract: The highest possible level of inclusion and justice are the primary goals of most contemporary education
systems, including vocational education and training. The Index for Inclusion, which was developed two decades ago, defines
inclusion on three levels, i.e. policy, culture and practice, and provides a methodological framework for measuring the inclusive
orientation of schools. This paper raises the question of whether the selected Index for Inclusion indicators can be used to also
measure different dimensions of justice, which is defined as a multidimensional concept. The just redistribution of basic goods
is complemented by recognition, representation and relationality. A study with the aim to determine the multidimensionality of the
implementation of inclusivity in Vocational Education and Training institutions using statistical analysis was carried out. An online
questionnaire was created and completed by 427 education professionals (head teachers, teachers and school counsellors)
employed in vocational education and training. The dimensionality of the measured constructs was checked using a set of
28 variables with factor analysis, i.e. the Maximum Likelihood method and Varimax rotation. It was found that the statements
that had been formulated on the basis of the Index for Inclusion can also be used to measure different dimensions of justice.
The final version of the questionnaire (modified questionnaire), which contains a set of twenty items, adequately measures
the redistribution and recognition aspects of justice, whereas the representation and relational aspects have proven to be two-
dimensional concepts. A modified questionnaire could be a suitable starting point both for the self-evaluation of schools and a
general measurement of inclusion in terms of justice.
Keywords: inclusion, justice, redistribution, recognition, representation, relationality.
Introduction
Over the past three decades, aspirations towards greater inclusion of the education system have
marked many theoretical discussions (Banks, 2023; Haug, 2017; Opertti, Brady, and Duncombe, 2009;
Reindal, 2015; Thomas, 2013; Warnock, 2010). In fact, two decades ago, they were the reason for
developing the Index for Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow, 2002) in the UK, which can be used both to
evaluate and foster efforts for more inclusive schools. The Index for Inclusion anticipates measures for
the operation of an educational institution at three levels (Booth and Ainscow, 2002):
1. the policy level by establishing systemic solutions and defining the rights of those who often face
exclusion,
2. the culture level by establishing and consolidating inclusive community values,
3. the practice level as didactic support for those who often face exclusion and as the nurturing of
relationships.
The Index for Inclusion constitutes a framework for identifying attitudes, obstacles, potentials and
efforts to establish a more inclusive culture, policy and practice in a certain educational institution, which
can also use it as a self-evaluation tool (Ainscow, 2023).
Ainscow (2023, p. 6) argues that inclusion is a matter of two interconnected dimensions. ‘First,
it is a matter of fairness, which implies ensuring that personal and social circumstances – for example,
www.ijcrsee.com
104
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
gender, socio-economic status or ethnic origin – are not an obstacle to achieving success in learning.
Second, it is to do with inclusion, which is about ensuring the presence, participation and achievement of
all children and young people.’ (Ainscow, 2023, p. 6) The coherence of the two concepts, inclusion and
justice, has been explored by a variety of other authors (Banks, 2023; Burke, Goriss-Hunter, and Emmett,
2023; Cochran-Smith and Stringer Keefe, 2022; Skubic Ermenc, Jeznik, and Mažgon, 2019; Kielblock
and Woodcock, 2023; Lynch, Kalaitzake, and Crean, 2021; Opertti, Brady, and Duncombe, 2009).
The UNESCO document titled Reimagining our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for
Education (2021, p. 3) includes the following statement: ‘Any new social contract must build on the broad
principles that underpin human rights – inclusion and equity, cooperation and solidarity, as well as collective
responsibility and interconnectedness’. In addition to an analysis of the situation, the document contains
several complex proposals for reforming education, which relate to the issue of pedagogy and didactics,
the school as an institution, and interpersonal relations within the school. In fact, the first chapter Towards
more equitable educational futures focuses precisely on the issue of justice in education: ‘If education is
to help transform the future, it must first become more inclusive by addressing past injustices. Factors that
shape these inequalities and exclusions must be clearly identified if policies and strategies are to support
marginalised students, especially those who experience compounded disadvantages.’ (Reimagining our
Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education, 2021, p. 23) It highlights access to education as
a fundamental right for all, while also noting that it is incomplete and unjust. In poverty-stricken countries,
one in four adolescents is still illiterate, one in five children does not even attend primary school, and the
situation is even worse in secondary education (Reimagining our Futures Together: A New Social Contract
for Education, 2021, p. 23).
A brief summary of the UNESCO document draws attention to the complexity and multidimensionality
of the core concepts, which are also studied in this paper. As noted by Akkan and Buğra (2020, p. 143)
the life chances of individuals from minority groups depend on the feeling of belonging to an inclusive
education system. Exclusion that results from inequality in opportunities to access quality education and
the experience of alienation and discrimination due to non-recognition affects an individual’s performance
and reduces the added value of education when it comes to developing the abilities of children from groups
that are often subject to exclusion. Inclusive education systems are supposed to recognise children’s
diversity, while also recognising parents’ choices about their children’s education and what it should be
like. According to the aforementioned, this should also have an impact on the development of children’s
abilities (Akkan and Buğra, 2020).
The second part of this paper provides an analysis of the validity and reliability of the measurements
of inclusion in vocational education and training based on the data from the survey titled Inclusion in
Vocational Education and Training (Inkluzija v poklicnem in strokovnem izobraževanju, 2022), which was
conducted in spring 2022 under the auspices of the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Vocational
Education and Training. The aim of the study was to examine the situation in terms of the implementation
of inclusion in Slovenian vocational education and training. The Index for Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow,
2002) has not yet been translated into Slovenian language, and no methodologically validated tool to
measure inclusiveness at the school and system level is available. The population of students enrolled in
vocational education and training* is heterogeneous. According to the official statistics from the Ministry
of Education 24,9 % of students enrolled in lower vocational education (2-year programs), 19,6 % of
students enrolled in vocational education (3-year programs) and 9,9 % of students enrolled in vocational
education (4-year programs) have special educational needs. Only 4,9 % such students are enrolled in
general secondary education (grammar schools). The data on immigrants enrolled in secondary education
refer to a variety of educational programs, both vocational and general. In 2022, 6.5% of students enrolled
in secondary education were immigrants (Strategy for integrating foreigners who are not citizens of the
European Union into the cultural, economic and social life of the Republic of Slovenia, n.d.). Various
studies point to the impact of low SES on the educational trajectories of students, which is becoming
increasingly evident (Cankar and Zupanc, 2020; Pedagoški inštitut, 2023). This has led to the survey with
the aim of measuring the state of inclusion in schools, and to develop a valid and reliable instrument that
can be used by the schools in the future to self-evaluate the field or that can be used at system level as a
tool for measuring inclusion in the prism of justice.
A total of 427 education professionals employed in vocational education and training (head teachers,
* In Slovenia, this refers to the upper-secondary level of education.
www.ijcrsee.com
105
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
school counsellors and teachers) from all over Slovenia took part in the survey. Individual indicators were
selected from the Index for Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow, 2002) based on the theoretical assumption that
inclusion can be implemented in a more holistic way by taking into account the multidimensional concept
of justice (Fraser, Dahl, Stoltz, and Willig, 2004; Lynch, Baker, and Lyons, 2009; Lynch, Kalaitzake, and
Crean, 2021; Lesar, 2013; Lesar, 2019). The index defines inclusion on three levels (policy, culture and
practice), the multidimensional concept, however, not only views justice at the level of meritocracy and
redistribution, but also highlights three other aspects, i.e. recognition, representation and relationality. This
paper analyses the data used to substantiate the theoretical assumption about the relationship between
the concepts of inclusion and justice, and examines whether the selected Index for Inclusion indicators
can be used to also measure different dimensions of justice.
Definition of inclusion
There is no single definition of inclusion. The definition depends on a particular environment, the
historical circumstances of education, the initial education methods of education professionals and many
other factors (Banks, 2023). However, what is common to various present-day definitions is that they
are characterised by a departure from the medical discourse and a special educational approach to
individuals who often face exclusion towards community-centred and general pedagogical and didactic
approaches and strategies intended for everyone. Several authors (Ainscow, 2023; Burke, Goriss-Hunter,
and Emmett, 2023; Skubic Ermenc, Jeznik, and Mažgon, 2019; Haug, 2017; Lesar, 2019) have pointed
out that the general educational concept of inclusion goes beyond the focus on individuals and groups
that traditionally receive different, usually special educational treatment within the school environment
(e.g. individuals with special needs). Baglieri et al. (2011 in Burke, Goriss-Hunter, and Emmett, 2023, p.
18) have identified three important cornerstones of inclusive education:
1. inclusive education should be aimed at everyone and not just minority groups, such as persons with
special needs;
2. learning and teaching should be participatory and inclusive and should not be based solely on
physical integration;
3. inclusive education should be supported by democratic principles and principles of social justice,
anchored in educational practices.
The way cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious, racial, sexual and other diversity is dealt with in
the education system also determines the degree of its inclusion, which can promote the belonging or
alienation of students from minority communities (Akkan and Buğra, 2020). Burke, Goriss-Hunter, and
Emmett, 2023) pointed out that while diversity and inclusion are increasingly emphasised in educational
environments across the globe, the pedagogical and didactic approaches to teaching are still distinctly
homogenous and based on a normative image of learners. The extent of diversity may remain invisible,
and teachers may remain unprepared to use more inclusive pedagogical approaches. The authors also
pointed out that not all people are equally different from one another. Some groups have been traditionally
disadvantaged even within the education system in some way: ‘Diversity, however, is complicated and
difficult to identify and describe in its complexity, meaning that single aspects of identified differences
often become the focus of any programme or intervention.’ (ibid., p. 19)
Inclusion through the prism of justice
Mel Ainscow (2023, p.127), co-author of the aforementioned Index for Inclusion, argues that the
extent of inclusive and just experiences not only depends on educational practices, but also on various
interlinked processes that form ‘an ecology of equity’ (Ainscow, 2023). Attention should be paid to the
following:
1. within-school factors, such as existing policies and practices,
2. between-school factors that arise from the characteristics of local school systems,
3. beyond-school factors, including the demographics, economics, cultures and histories of local areas
– all with a focus on reducing inequalities.
In the latter part of the paper, the interconnectedness between inclusion and justice is substantiated
through the multidimensional model of justice (Fraser, Dahl, Stoltz, and Willig, 2004; Lynch, Baker, and
Lyons, 2009; Lynch, Kalaitzake, and Crean, 2021; Lesar, 2019), which is based on four dimensions:
www.ijcrsee.com
106
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
redistribution, recognition, representation and relationality. Each of these four dimensions highlights a
certain way of individuals’ inclusion. Hence, the assumption is that inclusion is a concept that can be
implemented in a more just way by taking into account all four dimensions of justice.
The foundations of redistributive justice were laid five decades ago by John Rawls (1971). At the
forefront of his Theory of Justice is a just distribution of basic liberties and goods, including universal
access to public education. Both individuals and society benefit from this – individuals because they can
realise their potential, while society benefits from promoting social cohesion and trust in public institutions
through education (Christodoulou, et al., 2022). Rawls’ Theory of Justice (Rawls, 1971) is based on two
requirements. The first is that each person is to have an equal right to achieving the basic liberties in the
broadest sense of the word. The second is that social and economic inequalities between people are to be
arranged in such a way that one can expect the measures introduced to benefit everyone. Rawls further
divides the original two requirements into three principles: the equal opportunity principle or meritocracy,
the principle of fair equality of opportunity or positive discrimination, and the difference principle. On a
practical level, these principles commit us to acting in a way that will provide everyone, regardless of
their position, with equal conditions for success and that the only differences between us that are just
are those that bring benefits to the most disadvantageous individuals in society (Rawls, 1971). In terms
of identity, this means that the identity of a group or an individual should not be an obstacle to achieving
social positions, goods, rights and liberties (Jeznik, 2015), and a just society takes care of the weakest
individuals first.
As early as the 1990s, (Fraser, Dahl, Stoltz, and Willig, 2004; Fraser and Honneth, 2003; Knijn,
Theuns, and Miklós, 2020) pointed out that socioeconomic deprivation is significantly interwoven with
cultural differences. Thus, they added two more dimensions to redistributive justice: first, recognition
and later representation. Recognition basically means respect for different lifestyles, worldviews, life
circumstances, health situations, etc., i.e. not only in terms of recognising certain rights and liberties, as
assumed by the redistributive dimension of justice. Fraser and Honneth (2003) argue that not all concrete
forms of social injustice can be reduced to violations of the equal opportunity principle or the difference
principle, which underpin the redistributive dimension of justice. They analyse the cases of individuals with
atypical gender identities, proving that these identities must often be hidden in order for these individuals
to be exposed in visible (political) decision-making positions within society.
Fraser (2007) also draws attention to the limitations of recognition. He points out two things:
misrecognition and non-recognition, which can be illustrated using an example of the schooling of students
from migrant backgrounds and their integration into the education system. An immigrant may suffer serious
damage to their identity if, as education experts, we have a stigmatised view of them (misrecognition),
which can consequently lead to the immigrant developing a negative self-concept and prevent them from
developing a healthy identity. To be more specific, this is a matter of connecting individual’s personality
traits with stereotypical beliefs about a certain culture, linguistic community, nationality, etc., which is highly
problematic in the context of an educational system. Fraser (2007) notes that it is similarly problematic if
an individual’s identity position is invisible. In this case, this is a matter of non-recognition. In this kind of
situation, for various reasons, a person’s right to different treatment is not recognised due to them being
underprivileged.
The injustices experienced by minority groups are often divided between the misrecognition of
diversity, including ethnic, religious or racial differences, and the redistribution of inequality. The dynamics
of exclusion created by inequalities that exist in access to quality education, as well as the experience
of alienation due to non-recognition, affect student achievement and limit the value of education, which
is supposed to help develop the abilities of children from minority groups. Lynch and Baker (2005) point
out that in education this can be noticed in a null and hidden curriculum or in poor evaluation of certain
knowledge, as well as in a culture that is usually reproduced through the education system as a culture
of middle-class values.
Fraser, Dahl, Stoltz, and Willig (2004) therefore added another dimension to redistribution and
recognition, namely representation, which strives for different social groups and individuals to be involved
in decision-making in terms of their power and influence on positions within the community. Akkan and
Buğra (2020) argue that actual representation is often limited and individuals do not have the opportunity
to adequately express their demands and challenge stereotypes and stigmatisation related to their values
or cultural value. Equal participation, trust and representation are important concepts in understanding the
www.ijcrsee.com
107
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
role education plays in the creation of a good society and democracy, as pointed out by Dewey in the early
20th century. Sometimes the values of different groups are almost incompatible and cultural transmission
is very difficult, requiring the coordination of the demands of family and society (Akkan and Buğra (2020)).
A similar observation was made by Julie Allan in relation to children’s voice and rights in special education
(Allan, 2023, p. 31).
Lynch, Baker and Lyons (2009) added a fourth dimension to the three-dimensional model of justice
(redistribution, recognition and representation), i.e. relationality. In fact, the three-dimensional model is
based on the perception of an independent adult and disregards the importance of emotional interpersonal
relations. It is unclear if, how and when individuals who at a given moment are very dependent on others
due to old age, poor health, etc. hold any power and significance. The authors also raised the question
of the relationship between those who receive care and those who provide it. This is a political issue
that mainly concerns the female part of the population, the commonly unpaid or underpaid care workers
(Lynch, Kalaitzake, and Crean, 2021, p. 56). Since relationality is not a social derivative, it is subordinated
to economic, political or cultural relations in social life. It represents ethically based, care-relational
relationships that are expressed differently in different cultures, their main purpose, however, is to be with
others and co-build relationships in a way that is not alienating or exploitative (Lynch, Kalaitzake, and
Crean, 2021, p. 58). While the three-dimensional theory of justice paved the way for questions of social
justice in the social sciences, relationality opens up space for new scientific analyses (Lynch, Kalaitzake,
and Crean, 2021, p. 62).
With its inclusion and exclusion practices, education, on the one hand, reinforces existing social
inequalities, while on the other, it plays an important role in fighting against injustices and eliminating social
injustice and inequality. Despite some criticism, further research into the various dimensions of justice is
important mainly because socioeconomic inequalities can also affect access to education. Poverty is
thus still considered one of the causes and consequences of inequality in education, which lead to early
school leaving and affect the opportunities of children from disadvantaged backgrounds; not only poverty,
but also many other personal circumstances, such as gender, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. (Akkan
and Buğra (2020)). Despite the limitations of the model that they pointed out (positivism and formalism),
Knijn, Theuns and Miklós (2020) view the multidimensional model of justice as an adequate basis that can
be used to support research in this field while also offering a useful heuristic tool for interdisciplinary and
empirically based consideration of the different demands for justice.
Materials and Methods
The following part of the paper empirically shows that the concepts of inclusion and justice can be
considered together based on the data obtained as part of a survey on inclusion in vocational education
and training. The aim of the authors of this paper was to learn whether the selected Index for Inclusion
indicators can also be used as a starting point for measuring individual dimensions of justice, i.e.
redistribution, recognition, representation and relationality. We opted for a quantitative approach with the
aim to explore the dimensionality of the implementation of inclusivity in Vocational Education and Training
institutions through statistical analysis, i.e factor analysis.
The national survey included 427 education professionals (teachers, head teachers and school
counsellors) employed in vocational education and training. A questionnaire for measuring inclusion in
vocational education and training, which was designed for the purposes of the survey, was used for
data collection. Data collection was carried out between 27 June and 14 July 2022 using an online data
collection tool.
Most of the survey participants in the survey sample are teachers, whereof just over a fifth are
male. The school counsellors are predominantly female. The structure of the sample by gender gives
a realistic picture of the population. The sample is also very representative in terms of the education
professionals’ experience. More than half of the sample is represented by professionals with more than
twenty years of work experience in education.
www.ijcrsee.com
108
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
Table 1. Sample Description
All Teachers Head Teachers School Counsellors
N 427 354 44 29
Gender
Male 21.2% 21.6% 29.3% 3.7%
Female 75.0% 74.1% 68.3% 96.3%
Prefer not to answer 3.8% 4.3% 2.4% 0.0%
Years of work experience in education
Up to 5 years 8.9% 8.6% 0.0% 25.9%
6–10 years 9.4% 10.1% 2.4% 11.1%
11–20 years 23.3% 23.9% 14.6% 29.6%
More than 20 years 58.5% 57.5% 82.9% 33.3%
For research purposes, a questionnaire was designed for measuring inclusion in vocational
education and training. The questionnaire was based on the multidimensional model of justice and the
Index of Inclusion by Booth and Ainscow (2002). The Index of Inclusion includes a set of indicators for
measuring inclusion at the level of inclusive policy, culture and practice. Those indicators that, in the
authors’ opinion, also reflect a certain dimension of justice were selected from the index. The selected
indicators were operationalised with statements and the respondents specified their level of agreement on
a four-point scale with the following answers: not true at all, mostly not true, mostly true and absolutely true.
The respondents had the option of not answering, i.e. choosing the answer I prefer not to answer, if they
did not have sufficient information about the situation to be able to provide an answer. The questionnaire,
which was given to education professionals to fill out, contained a total of 28 statements (Inkluzija v
poklicnem in strokovnem izobraževanju [Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training], 2022, p. 89–93).
In this paper the focus is on checking the dimensionality of the measured constructs, which was
carried out by means of factor analysis.
Results
The dimensionality of the measured constructs was checked using a set of 28 variables. The
design of the questionnaire was based on the assumption that measuring the inclusion of schools is
a four-dimensional construct, consisting of redistribution, recognition, representation and relationality.
The multidimensionality of the measured construct was checked with factor analysis, i.e. the Maximum
Likelihood method and Varimax rotation.
Several versions of factor solutions were created, this paper, however, describes the final solution,
which is the most appropriate in terms of measurement validity and reliability.
After excluding the variables whose loadings were low, a 5-factor structure was obtained; in terms
of content, this structure is more compatible with the assumed (theoretical) structure. Twenty items were
kept in the analysis and were used to measure the inclusion of vocational education and training.
Bartlett’s Test (Χ² = 2350.9; df = 190; p < 0.001) shows that the correlation matrix is not an identity
matrix, which means that dimension reduction can be used. The high Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure
values indicate that the data are suitable for performing factor analysis.
www.ijcrsee.com
109
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.898
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Χ22350.873
df 190
p< 0.001
The first factor explains a 14.8% variance of the measured construct, the second factor 13.6% and
the third factor 11.8% variance of the measured construct. The fourth extracted factor explains a variance
of 10.1% and the last factor, i.e. the fifth, a variance of less than 10% of the measured construct. All five
factors together explain a variance of 60% of the measured construct.
Table 3. Percentage of Explained Variance
Factor
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.960 14.798 14.798
2 2.715 13.573 28.371
3 2.353 11.765 40.135
4 2.029 10.145 50.280
5 1.939 9.696 59.976
The table below illustrates the factor loadings for each variable from the rotated factor matrix.
Those variables that clearly load one of the five extracted factors were kept in the analysis.
Tabel 4. Rotated Factor Matrix
Factor
1 2 3 4 5
Employees at our school strive to remove
the obstacles students face in achieving
their goals in all areas (learning, extracur-
ricular activities, personal development,
career, etc.).
.216 .529 .251 .145 .214
The school fund resources are used
sensibly to ensure equal opportunities for
students.
.281 .455 .213 .146 .127
Our school’s development plan and related
practices effectively reduce learning- and
participation-related obstacles for all
students.
.165 .684 .155 .320 .102
We help all new students get used to the
school as soon as possible. .193 .552 .111 .160 .232
At our school, we intentionally discuss the
meaning of the concept of inclusion. .306 .217 .129 .826 .132
At our school, we have a uniform under-
standing of an inclusive school. .279 .225 .185 .855 .097
The teacher-parent cooperation at our
school is good. .261 .570 .273 -.026 .126
www.ijcrsee.com
110
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
The definition of inclusion/inclusive school
and the resulting practices (lesson organ-
isation, lesson accommodations and modi-
fications, etc.) are included in our school’s
development plan.
.371 .468 .119 .393 .152
Students at our school help one another. .260 .257 .387 .148 .215
When it comes to planning the teaching pro-
cess, the employees at our school success-
fully accommodate all students, regardless
of their differences.
.450 .410 .207 .111 .208
I ensure I include topics related to the
understanding of diversity in my teaching
work.
.459 .335 .042 .193 .134
The employees at our school work with one
another in planning, teaching and evaluat-
ing the teaching process for students with
special needs.
.712 .248 .239 .235 .201
The employees at our school work with one
another in planning, teaching and evaluat-
ing the teaching process for students from
migrant backgrounds.
.818 .186 .141 .191 .114
The employees at our school work with one
another in planning, teaching and evalu-
ating the teaching process for low-SES
students.
.766 .279 .176 .231 .111
Standards of ethical conduct at our school
are very high. .153 .315 .408 .151 .474
At our school, we immediately respond
to various exclusionary practices among
students.
.183 .282 .283 .077 .689
At our school, we immediately respond to
various exclusionary practices adopted by
employees when dealing with students.
.174 .167 .199 .115 .880
At our school, there is mutual respect
between employees and students. .122 .105 .814 .068 .225
At our school, students respect one another. .070 .219 .658 .084 .058
At our school, employees respect one
another. .204 .165 .620 .138 .216
The first factor is strongly and clearly loaded by the variables that were at the outset assumed to
measure recognition. Factor analysis revealed that recognition is a one-dimensional construct defined by
the following elements:
1. accommodating different students when planning the teaching process
2. making sure teaching work includes topics related to the understanding of diversity
3. planning, teaching and evaluating the teaching process for students with special needs
4. planning, teaching and evaluating the teaching process for students from migrant backgrounds
5. planning, teaching and evaluating the teaching process for low-SES students
The second factor is loaded by the variables that were at the outset assumed to measure
redistribution, however, at the same time it is also loaded by two variables from the representation set.
Considering that these two dimensions are not compatible in terms of the content, it was decided that the
variables that clearly load the second factor would be treated as part of two dimensions. The first is called
redistribution, which is defined by the following elements:
www.ijcrsee.com
111
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
1. striving to remove the obstacles students face in achieving their goals in all areas
2. using school fund resources to ensure equal opportunities for students
3. the effectiveness of reducing learning- and participation-related obstacles of all students
4. helping new students get used to the school
The second dimension, as part of the second factor, is defined by two variables that were used to
measure representations. Representation is a two-dimensional construct, where two variables load the
second factor (and two variables the fourth factor). The two elements in question are:
1. teacher-parent cooperation
2. an inclusive orientation of the school’s development plan
Two variables that were at the outset assumed to measure representations load the fourth factor:
1. intentionally discussing the meaning of the concept of inclusion
2. a uniform understanding of an inclusive school
The third factor is loaded by the variables that were at the outset assumed to measure relationality,
namely:
1. mutual respect between students and employees
2. mutual respect among students
3. mutual respect among employees
4. students’ mutual help
The fifth factor is loaded by the variables that were at the outset assumed to measure relationality,
namely:
1. high standards of ethical conduct
2. immediate response to various exclusionary practices among the students
3. immediate response to various exclusionary practices adopted by employees when dealing with
students
Relationality has thus proven to be a two-dimensional construct, which encompasses the relational
aspect on the one hand, and the functioning of schools on the other.
Factor analysis revealed that an inclusive orientation through the prism of justice of schools is a six-
dimensional construct defined by the elements shown in the table below. The reliability of the measurement
of dimensions was checked in terms of their internal consistency, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
calculated to this end. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are provided next to the name of each dimension.
www.ijcrsee.com
112
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
Table 5. Extracted dimensions of an inclusive orientation through the prism of justice with the
internal consistency coefficient, the definition of dimensions and their operationalisation
DIMENSION DEFINITION (ITEMS) OPERATIONALISATION
REDISTRIBUTION
(α = 0.748)
Striving to remove the obstacles stu-
dents face in achieving their goals in
all areas
Employees at our school strive to remove the ob-
stacles students face in achieving their goals in all
areas (learning, extracurricular activities, personal
development, career etc.).
Using school fund resources to en-
sure equal opportunities for students
The school fund resources are used sensibly to
ensure equal opportunities for students.
The effectiveness of reducing
learning- and participation-related
obstacles for all students
Our school’s development plan and related prac-
tices effectively reduce learning- and participation-
related obstacles for all students.
Helping new students get used to
the school
We help all new students get used to the school as
soon as possible.
REPRESENTATION (the
functioning-of-school aspect)
(α = 0.603)
Teacher-parent cooperation The teacher-parent cooperation at our school is
good.
Inclusive orientation of the school’s
development plan
The definition of inclusion/inclusive school and the
resulting practices (lesson organisation, lesson ac-
commodations and modifications, etc.) are included
in our school’s development plan.
REPRESENTATION
(declarative aspect of school)
(α = 0.904)
Intentionally discussing the meaning
of the concept of inclusion
At our school, we intentionally discuss the meaning
of the concept of inclusion.
A uniform understanding of an
inclusive school
At our school, we have a uniform understanding of
an inclusive school.
RECOGNITION
(α = 0.846)
Accommodating different students
when planning the teaching process
When it comes to planning the teaching process,
the employees at our school successfully accom-
modate all students, regardless of their differences.
Making sure teaching work includes
topics related to the understanding
of diversity
I ensure I include topics related to the understand-
ing of diversity in my teaching work.
Planning, teaching and evaluating
the teaching process for students
with special needs
The employees at our school work with one
another in planning, teaching and evaluating the
teaching process for students with special needs.
Planning, teaching and evaluating
the teaching process for students
from migrant backgrounds
The employees at our school work with one anoth-
er in planning, teaching and evaluating the teaching
process for students from migrant backgrounds.
Planning, teaching and evaluating
the teaching process for low-SES
students
The employees at our school work with one
another in planning, teaching and evaluating the
teaching process for low-SES students.
RELATIONALITY (functioning
of the school)
(α = 0.804)
High standards of ethical conduct Standards of ethical conduct at our school are very
high.
Immediate response to various ex-
clusionary practices among students
At our school, we immediately respond to various
exclusionary practices among the students.
Immediate response to various
exclusionary practices adopted
by employees when dealing with
students
At our school, we immediately respond to various
exclusionary practices adopted by employees when
dealing with students.
RELATIONALITY (relational
aspect)
(α = 0.762)
Students’ mutual help The students at our school help one another.
Mutual respect between students
and employees
At our school, there is mutual respect between
employees and students.
Mutual respect among students At our school, students respect one another.
Mutual respect among the employ-
ees
At our school, employees respect one another.
www.ijcrsee.com
113
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicate a sufficiently high internal consistency of the measured
constructs. The consistency of the representation factor is somewhat lower from the declarative aspect,
where Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is at the lower limit of consistency, however, this result was attributed
to a small number of items used to measure the factor.
Discussions
The aim of this paper was to check the dimensionality of the measured constructs. It was revealed
that justice is a multidimensional construct that can be measured by means of the indicators of the Index
for Inclusion by Booth and Ainscow (2002).
The survey has provided the first comprehensive insight into the state of inclusion in the prism
of justice in vocational education and training in Slovenia. A valid and reliable methodological tool for
measuring the domain in the future has been developed. It can be used for identification of the state of
inclusion in the prism of justice at the school level on the one hand, and for the evaluation of the impact
of systematic support in the field of inclusion and justice on the other hand. Many challenges in this area
remain and some are highlighted below.
As defined in the first part of the paper based on Rawls’ Theory of Justice (1971), the redistribution
of various basic goods is the foundation for the way justice is viewed in Western societies. It is based
on asserting individual rights, which are ensured by redistributing goods and providing access to social
positions – at school, this is achieved by enabling conditions necessary for optimal learning outcomes,
i.e. by removing obstacles and offering additional support to those who need it. The differences in rights
are justified if they benefit the most disadvantaged individuals (positive discrimination). The research
in this paper has revealed that the redistribution of basic goods can be inferred on the basis of (1) the
efforts to remove the obstacles students face in achieving their goals in all areas, (2) the use of school
fund resources to ensure equal opportunities for students, (3) the effectiveness of reducing learning- and
participation-related obstacles for all students, and (4) helping new students get used to school. The
assessments by head teachers, school counsellors and teachers of the implementation of inclusion in terms
of redistribution was comparable to this (Inkluzija v poklicnem in strokovnem izobraževanju [Inclusion in
Vocational Education and Training], 2022). They assessed that new students were getting a great deal of
help in getting used to school and that school employees made considerable efforts to remove obstacles
students face in achieving their goals in all areas (learning, personal development, career, etc.) The
respondents also mostly confirmed a sensible use of school fund resources to ensure equal opportunities
for all students. This is a standard aid measure for students from low-SES families and a typical positive
discrimination measure, which can also have a downside. On the one hand, the redistribution of rights
can indeed constitute support for individuals’ inclusion, while on the other, as pointed out in the first part
of this paper, such measures can lead to even greater stigmatisation of those who often face exclusion
(Akkan and Buğra, 2020; Fraser, Dahl, Stoltz, and Willig, 2004; Fraser and Honneth, 2003; Knijn, Theuns,
and Miklós, 2020). The research also found that schools’ development plans and the resulting practices
are to a lesser extent aimed at effectively reducing the learning- and participation-related obstacles for
all students. This can be attributed to the fact that, in general, teachers are sometimes unfamiliar with all
the documents that guide their work. Even if the documents as such do not have a direct impact on their
actual pedagogical practice, detailed familiarity with these documents can be a prerequisite for improving
the quality of pedagogical work.
Recognition foregrounds the rights of traditionally overlooked cultures. At school, just recognition is
manifested, for instance, as the discourse of inability (negative recognition) being replaced by the discourse
of obstruction (positive recognition) (Fraser and Honneth, 2003). It was found that the implementation of
recognition in vocational education and training can be implied on the basis of (1) accommodating different
students when planning the teaching process, (2) the inclusion of topics related to the understanding
of otherness in teaching work, (3) school employees working with one another in planning, teaching
and evaluating the teaching process for students with special needs, (4) [...] for students from migrant
backgrounds, and (5) [...] for low-SES students. The report Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training
(Inkluzija v poklicnem in strokovnem izobraževanju [Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training],
2022) shows that school employees work most with one another in planning, teaching and evaluating the
teaching process when it concerns students with special needs, less so when it concerns students from
www.ijcrsee.com
114
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
migrant backgrounds, and even less so when it concerns students from low-SES families. When it comes
to discussing recognition and looking for an answer to the question of which students to pay more attention
to, it would be necessary to take a step away from certain groups of students whose schooling is relatively
well regulated to those groups who often face exclusion (Ainscow, 2023; Lynch and Baker, 2005). In
practice, recognition is also directly related to the implementation of various accommodating measures
that are the result of the rights enjoyed by students who often face exclusion. The respondents’ answers
show that among the school practices focused on accommodating the students’ differences, those related
to knowledge assessment and evaluation are the most common, as are those related to planning and
adapting the teaching process to different students and including topics related to the understanding of
diversity into school lessons. In the future, other research approaches should be used to study the specific
accommodation practices used by education professionals in schools.
Representation stems from the equality of conditions for (political) power in taking part in (co)
decision-making at different levels of social life and for different social groups (Akkan and Buğra, 2020;
Fraser, Dahl, Stoltz, and Willig, 2004). At school, this is manifested as everyone being involved in various
decision-making processes. Factor analysis has revealed representation to be a two-dimensional construct
and should be considered as such. In terms of the functioning of a school, representation includes (1)
teacher-parent cooperation, and (2) definitions of inclusion and the resulting practices being included
in the school’s development plan. The two items that were used to measure representation in terms of
the functioning of a school saturate the factor that very clearly measures redistribution. However, based
on the content of these items, it was decided that representation in terms of the functioning of a school
should be kept as a separate dimension. Representation from the declarative aspect of school includes
(1) intentionally discussing the meaning of the concept of inclusion, and (2) a uniform understanding of
an inclusive school. The report Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training (Inkluzija v poklicnem in
strokovnem izobraževanju, 2022) shows that the respondents assessed cooperation with the students’
parents as good. Intentional discussions about the meaning of the concept of inclusion, however, are
present to a lesser extent, and a uniform understanding of an inclusive school is weak (ibid.). Considering
the complexity of the concept, the findings come as no surprise. In the future, even more attention should
be paid to defining it as precisely and unambiguously as possible.
Relationality also proved to be a two-dimensional construct. Relationality arises from the question
of how to structure a just social environment in order to stimulate the development of individuals’ ability to
(co-)live in a community. At school, this is manifested as nurturing an accepting, respectful and supportive
culture of coexistence between children/adolescents and adults (Lynch, Kalaitzake, and Crean, 2021).
The research revealed that it is necessary to look at relationality from two aspects: the relational aspect
and the functioning-of-school aspect. The former is defined by respect (1) among students, (2) among
employees, and (3) between students and employees, as well as (4) students’ mutual help, which was
initially hypothesised to be a measure of representation. The findings show (Inkluzija v poklicnem in
strokovnem izobraževanju [Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training], 2022) a relatively low level of
mutual respect between school employees and students, and a similarly low level of mutual respect was
also found among school employees themselves. Above all, however, the respondents believe that the
level of mutual respect is low among students. This might be interpreted as a consequence of the fact that
education professionals often pay more attention to conflicts between students and to peer violence, or
that they are more likely to notice inappropriate rather than appropriate communication. This might result
in their belief that there is no respect among students.
Relationality that relates to the functioning of a school is defined by (1) the implementation of
high standards of ethical conduct and immediate response to various exclusionary practices (2) among
students, and (3) adopted by employees when dealing with students. The findings (Inkluzija v poklicnem
in strokovnem izobraževanju [Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training], 2022) suggest that only a
little over one third of the respondents believe that the standards of ethical conduct at their school are
high, which is actually also connected with the presence of students with special needs and low-SES
students. In fact, the larger the number of these groups of students, the lower the standards of ethical
conduct. The research also revealed that more than a half of the education professionals stated that
their respective schools’ response to various exclusionary practices among students and exclusionary
practices adopted by employees when dealing with students is not immediate.
It can be concluded that inclusion in terms of justice is not only a four-dimensional concept, but
www.ijcrsee.com
115
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
rather a six-dimensional one. There are other theoretical discussions of justice, e.g. restorative justice
(González, 2012; Sellman, Cremin, and McCluskey, 2014; Thorsborne and Blood, 2013), hence this
finding does not come as much of a surprise. In the future, it would thus make sense to supplement the
existing dimensions and the statements used to measure them, both in terms of the theoretical concepts
and research conducted, which would further increase the set of Index for Inclusion indicators, which can
also be used to draw conclusions about the justice of school environments.
Conclusions
Based on a review of 225 relevant studies, Kielblock and Woodcock (2023) concluded that none
of the existing instruments measures inclusiveness appropriately. Hence, a new instrument that would
measure the attitude towards inclusive education for all students is needed. Taking into account inclusion
viewed as a concept that is intended for everyone, this paper has shown that the Index for Inclusion
can not only be used as a tool for measuring inclusion, but also as a starting point for designing a tool
to be used for measuring the multidimensional concept of justice. Despite the perceived need to modify
the questionnaire, which was completed by education professionals employed in Slovenian vocational
education and training, the paper confirmed a connection between the two complex concepts, i.e. justice
and inclusion. This connection was substantiated both theoretically and empirically.
One of the research limitations that needs to be highlighted is the unclear loading of the items
that have been shown to measure representation in terms of the functioning of schools. In fact, factor
analysis showed a correlation between the items measuring teacher-parent cooperation and inclusion
of the definition of inclusion and the resulting practices into schools’ development plans, and the items
used to measure redistribution. The decision to keep the factor as a separate dimension of representation
was based on the content as the main decisive criterion, i.e. in terms of the content, the two items do not
measure redistribution. The factor has borderline acceptable internal consistency, thus in future, it might
be worthwhile to consider redefining the representation dimension in terms of the functioning of schools.
It would also make sense to upgrade such measurements through process-oriented activities to
eliminate weak areas perceived when it comes to operation in specific educational institutions. These
areas refer to viewing inclusion and justice as fundamental principles of school communities. When
planning various activities aimed at promotion of inclusion and justice, it is imperative to use as much
data as possible and to make sure the data is as diverse as possible. Moreover, the changes must include
the organisational culture of institutions, as well as measures at the level of a wider community.
Acknowledgements
The article is a product of research program no. P5-0174 Pedagogical-andragogical research –
Learning and education for quality life in a community, funded by the Slovenian Research Agency.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.J. and N.K.; methodology, K.J. and N.K.; software, N.K. and K.J.; investigation,
N.K. and K.J.; formal analysis, N.K. and K.J.; validation, N.K. and K.J.; writing—original draft preparation,
K.J. and N.K.; writing—review and editing, K.J. and N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Ainscow, M. (2023). Making Sense of Inclusion and Equity in Education: A Personal Journey. In J. Banks (Ed.), The Inclusion
Dialogue: Debating Issues, Challenges and Tensions with Global Experts (pp. 6–22). New York: Routledge.
Akkan, B., & Buğra, A. (2020). Education and Justice: Inclusion, Exclusion and Belonging. In T. Knijn, & D. Lepianka (Eds.),
Justice and Vulnerability in Europe: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 143-160). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.4337/9781839108488.00016
www.ijcrsee.com
116
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
Allan, J. (2023). Challenges and dilemmas in inclusive education. What we can learn from children. In J. Banks (Ed.), The
Inclusion Dialogue Debating Issues, Challenges and Tensions with Global Experts (pp. 23–35). New York: Routledge.
Banks, J. (Ed.). (2023). The Inclusion Dialogue Debating Issues, Challenges and Tensions with Global Experts. New York:
Routledge.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies
on Inclusive Education.
Burke, J., Goriss-Hunter, A., & Emmett, S. (2023). Policy, Discourse and Epistemology in Inclusive Education. In S. Weuffen,
J. Burke, M. Plunkett, A. Goriss-Hunte, & S. Emmett (Eds.), Inclusion, Equity, Diversity, and Social Justice in Education
(pp. 13-27). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5008-7_2
Cankar, G., & Zupanc, D. (2020). Pravične možnosti izobraževanja v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Državni izpitni center.
Christodoulou, J. A., Okano, K. H., Gove, A. K., McBride, C., Raihani, R., Strigel, C. I., Troncoso Perez, L., & Chakraborty,
A. (2022). Diversity and social justice in education. In A. K. Duraiappah, N. M. van Atteveldt, G. Borst, S. Bugden,
O. Ergas, T. Gilead, L. Gupta, J. Mercier, K. Pugh, N. C. Singh, & E. A. Vickers (Eds.), Reimagining education: The
International Science and Evidence based Education Assessment (pp. 256-299). New Delhi: UNESCO, MGIEP.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Keefe, E. S. (2022). Strong equity: Repositioning teacher education for social change. Teachers College
Record, 124(3), 9-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221087304
Dahl, H. M., Stoltz, P., & Willig, R. (2004). Recognition, redistribution and representation in capitalist global society: An interview
with Nancy Fraser. Acta Sociologica, 47(4), 374-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699304048671
Fraser, N. (2007). Feminist politics in the age of recognition: A two-dimensional approach to gender justice. Studies in Social
Justice, 1(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v1i1.979
Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political–Philosophical Exchange. New York: Verso.
González, T. (2012). Keeping Kids in Schools: Restorative Justice, Punitive Discipline, and the School to Prison Pipeline.
Journal of Law & Education, 41(2), 281–335.
Haug, P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(3),
206–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778
Inkluzija v poklicnem in strokovnem izobraževanju [Inclusion in Vocational Education and Training]. (2022). https://cpi.si/wp-
content/uploads/2023/08/Porocilo_Inkluzija-v-PSI_2022.pdf
Jeznik, K. (2015). From the acknowledgment to the recognition of children’s and adolescents’ identity. Sodobna pedagogika,
132(1), 28–45. https://www.sodobna-pedagogika.net/en/articles/01-2015_from-the-acknowledgment-to-the-
recognition-of-childrens-and-adolescents-identity/
Kielblock, S., & Woodcock S. (2023). Who’s included and Who’s not? An analysis of instruments that measure teachers’ attudes
towards inclusive educaton. Teaching and Teacher Educaton, 122, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103922
Knijn, T., Theuns, T., & Miklós, Z. (2020). Redistribution, recognition and representation: understanding justice across academic
disciplines. In T. Knijn, & D. Lepianka (Eds.), Justice and Vulnerability in Europe: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp.
54–72). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839108488.00011
Lesar, I. (2013). Ideja inkluzije - med različnimi koncepti pravičnosti in etičnimi teorijami [The idea of inclusion – between various
concepts of justice and ethical theories]. Sodobna Pedagogika, 130(2), 76–95. https://www.sodobna-pedagogika.net/
en/articles/02-2013_the-idea-of-inclusion-between-various-concepts-of-justice-and-ethical-theories/
Lesar, I. (2019). Izzivi pedagogike pri vpeljevanju inkluzivnosti v šolski sistem [The challenges of pedagogy by introducing
inclusiveness into the school system]. Sodobna Pedagogika, 136(1), 50–69. https://www.sodobna-pedagogika.net/en/
articles/01-2019_the-challenges-of-pedagogy-by-introducing-inclusiveness-into-the-school-system/
Lynch, K., & Baker, J. (2005). Equality in education: An equality of condition perspective. Theory and Research in Education,
3(2), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878505053298
Lynch, K., Baker, J., & Lyons, M. (2009). Affective equality: Love, care and injustice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lynch, K., Kalaitzake, M., & Crean, M. (2021). Care and affective relations: Social justice and sociology. The Sociological
Review, 69(1), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120952744
Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Data on students with special needs in secondary education programs. https://www.gov.si/
assets/ministrstva/MVI/Dokumenti/Izobrazevanje-otrok-s-posebnimi-potrebami/Statistike-in-analize/Tabela_dijaki_s_
posebnimi_potrebami.pdf
Opertti, R., Brady, J., & Duncombe, L. (2009). Moving forward: Inclusive education as the core of education for all. Prospects, 39(3),
205-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9112-3
Pedagoški inštitut. (2023). PISA 2022: program mednarodne primerjave dosežkov učencev in učenk. Ljubljana: Pedagoški
inštitut.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reimagining our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. (2021). International Commission on the Futures of
Education, UNESCO.
Reindal, S. M. (2015). Discussing inclusive education: an inquiry into different interpretations and a search for ethical aspects
www.ijcrsee.com
117
Kristl, N., & Jeznik, K. (2024). Measuring inclusion in vocational education and training through the prism of justice of education,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 103-117.
of inclusion using the capabilities approach. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/08856257.2015.1087123
Sellman, E., Cremin, H., & McCluskey, G. (2014). Restorative approaches to conict in schools: Interdisciplinary perspectives
on whole school approaches to managing relationships. London: Routledge.
Skubic Ermenc, K., Jeznik, K., & Mažgon, J. (2019). Inclusion – a general pedagogical concept. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
Strategy for integrating foreigners who are not citizens of the European Union into the cultural, economic and social life of the
Republic of Slovenia. (2023). https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MNZ/SOJ/Novice/2023/11-November/Strategija-
vkljucevanja-tujcev-17.11.2023_pop.docx
Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of
inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.65
2070
Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practice in schools: a practical guide to transforming school
communities. J. Kingsley.
Warnock, M. (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. In M. Warnock, B. Norwich, & L. Terzi (Eds.), Special educational
needs: A new look (pp. 11–46). London: Continuum.
